Marvel and DC play catch up with the real world.

The big comic publishers have a long history of whipping up gimmicky storylines in bids for attention, news coverage, and a corresponding boost in sales ("Superman, is he really dead?"). Marrying a popular couple is a good one; see 1987's marriage between Peter Parker (better known as Spider-Man) and Mary Jane. Over on the DC side nearly a decade later, there was Superman (alive and well!) and Lois Lane dropping the enduring-yet-bizarre love triangle with alter ego Clark Kent and finally tying the knot. These things are never destined to last, of course—witness the somewhat desperate backtracking on Marvel's part to erase Spider-Man's marriage.

Alpha Flight #106

Looking to stir up some of that juicy publicity again in 1992, Marvel skipped the marriage route, let the tired, massive character crossover events take a break for once, and instead decided to out one of its characters as gay. The spotlight fell on mutant hero Northstar, a member of Canadian team Alpha Flight, and an on-and-off-again X-Men teammate. This wasn't exactly a shock to anyone who followed the character—there had been sly nudges and winks aplenty for a while (including a strangely aborted AIDS storyline), but a comic book hero holding a press conference (the action takes place in Alpha Flight #106) to announce his sexuality generated plenty of real world press, as, one imagines, Marvel would have hoped.

This storyline appeared a year before Don't Ask, Don't Tell—the United States policy on gay men and women serving in the military—a particularly relevant piece of real world legislation when it comes to talking about someone who isn't straight putting their life on the line to save people, be they fictional or otherwise. At this time there was no Will & Grace putting gay characters into the mainstream and Ellen DeGeneres hadn't made television history by coming out (in character) in an airport. Comics like Frank Miller's Batman: Year One or Neil Gaiman's The Sandman were slowly breaking down the popular perception of comic books as purely a children's medium, but the notion of a gay hero was still one that generated plenty of ink and controversy. (That's right, ink—this was 1992.)

The early '90s were also the peak of ACT UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) generating its own headlines. ACT UP activists had tried to hijack the set of the CBS Evening News the year before. The storyline of Alpha Flight #106 revolved around a baby dying of AIDS, and it felt relevant that a superhero would hold a press conference to discuss his sexuality.

It was likely no coincidence that the character Marvel chose to come out was a mutant. Much has been made of the parallels between the struggle for gay civil rights in the real world and the fictional portrayals of mutants fighting for equality and stepping out of their own closet. Themes of distrust and fear of the other are familiar—the neighbor who might look like you but inside is somehow different, people who feel like outsiders inside of a society that at best isn't always welcoming and at worst reacts with unveiled hatred and violence. Media event or not, Marvel was directly speaking to that connection, and it was a somewhat risky move on its part; the public might not have been ready for it.

To Marvel's credit, it stuck with it. Northstar wasn't destined to be the solo gay mutant, though less was made of more minor players like the New Mutants' Karma being revealed as a lesbian. Rather than being a storyline driver it was simply part of the normal fabric of the fictional world.

Shan Coy Manh AKA Karma from the original New Mutants in a scene casually referencing her sexuality.

Fast forward twenty years, and Marvel decides to pull two tricks out of the old playbook. In May 2012 it announced that Northstar was going to marry his boyfriend Kyle. They live in the state of New York, where gay marriage is legal in both the real and comic book worlds, so why not? The story was broken on "The View" and picked up a predictable amount of press. It wasn't the same, though. Rather than staking out a controversial stance ahead of the curve of popular opinion and riding the waves of its own making, Marvel found itself instead playing catch-up to the headlines of the day. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed. The media is full of openly gay characters. Support for gay marriage in the United States has passed the 50% mark. The president, gearing up for a tough election fight, felt that the political calculus was safe enough to throw his support behind gay marriage.

Nevertheless, the grab for headlines was on, and DC, not content to watch Marvel from the sidelines, announced its own gay hero on June 1st, and this time it was not a minor player from a second-string team like Alpha Flight, but rather Green Lantern himself (albeit from its alternate EARTH 2 universe). Green Lantern is still a household name. People who couldn't tell you who Northstar is for a million dollars would happily take that cash if the question was about that guy with the green power ring. That said, this is still second-string Green Lantern, alternate universe Green Lantern, and it feels a bit like a cautious play, as if DC doesn't want to gamble with the identity of the "real thing".

Green Lantern (left) of DC's EARTH 2 shares a kiss with his lover.

Cynics might ask, are DC and Marvel truly championing civil rights and equality, or is this purely a grab for headlines and comics sales? Perhaps society has come to the point where the answer can be both. Gay marriage is still a political hot potato and a controversial topic in the ballot booth, but it's mainstream enough that you can reliably bank on it as part of your marketing strategy. Witness JC Penny celebrating the strength of gay families in the face of a threatened boycott. When giant corporations who can turn a movie into a billion dollars in less than three weeks are in the mix, everything is calculated, yes, but it's almost a sign that you've made it when you're even a line on the spreadsheet.

We'd be remiss not to point out that indie comics have tackled ideas like this for decades, and have long been more comfortable addressing issues like sexuality head on. This isn't really a commentary on sexuality in the comic medium itself, but more about the big dogs who play it safe.

It's also important to note that no matter how calculated or cynical these ploys might be, there are gay comic readers out there who have never seen themselves reflected in the main heroes of Marvel or DC. Even if slightly hedged, a major character like Green Lantern coming out is a chance to catch a glimpse in that mirror, something straight readers have been unconsciously able to take for granted since they first opened a mainstream comic book.

Is it a sign that mainstream comic books have truly grown up? Maybe. We're still talking about men and women with superpowers flying around in spandex. There's always going to be a childish heart there, no matter how much grit and sexuality you try to pile on top of it. It is more likely that a natural progression is once again occurring, where what was controversial is mainstreaming and simply being reflected just a little ahead of its time. That's something the best fantasy writing accomplishes. As celebrated science fiction writer William Gibson once noted, "The future is already here—it's just not evenly distributed."

Promoted Comments

So now Alan Scott is gay. I'm fine with that, but kind of sad about the collateral damage. Farewell Obsidian and Jade. We hardly knew you.

Rather than view it as Marvel and DC, it might be more informative to view it as their parent companies finally allowing them to join the modern world. This wouldn't be happening if Disney and Time Warner weren't comfortable with the change. We've certainly come a long way from the days of the Comics Code Authority.

Earth 2 is basically a side-Universe where DC keeps Golden Age Of Comics properties around. Apparently they're keeping that mechanic even after the recent reboot. So this Green Lantern is a new version of Alan Scott (the old-timey original GL). In the mainstream DC continuity that is no more, he had a superpowered son called Obsidian who was gay. So for this new Earth 2 universe where they're going to keep Alan Scott as GL, I guess they decided it was appropriate to shift the orientation from father to son for the sake of maintaining a little diversity without having to wait for the character to go through fifty years of publication first.

379 Reader Comments

I never really cared for Green Lantern, but if I had, this wouldn't change how I felt about the character. It sounds like it's a move to get free publicity, because you know the news outlets are going to talk about it a lot.

It feels half-hearted since the "real" Green Lantern isn't the gay one.

Just cashing in on trends to get some free publicity. Evidenced by the fact that every promotional image including this one, is of two dudes kissing, whereas if it was a new straight character it would be something else like them using their powers. Another pathetic money grab by DC now that the "new 52" was exposed as a scam.

Another pathetic money grab by DC now that the "new 52" was exposed as a scam.

I'm actually enjoying some of the New 52 titles myself. I met the author of Nightwing (on my way to Chicago for an Ars meeting funnily enough) and so I started picking a few (Nightwing to support the guy, then later Batman since they intertwined, and Wonder Woman since I love Azzarello). It's just fun spandex superhero stuff, but it's well done if you enjoy that kind of thing.

I don't think many people object to a gay character, but I think a LOT of people object to the notion that they're cashing in on a politically correct trend by changing a character. If they'd simply created a new character -- just a normal character who happened to be gay -- I think very few people would have cared. Are they suddenly going to announce that one of the characters is an evangelical Christian? Or a breast cancer survivor? Or whatever? The obviously political pandering is what bothers most of us who aren't crazy about this idea.

So now Alan Scott is gay. I'm fine with that, but kind of sad about the collateral damage. Farewell Obsidian and Jade. We hardly knew you.

Rather than view it as Marvel and DC, it might be more informative to view it as their parent companies finally allowing them to join the modern world. This wouldn't be happening if Disney and Time Warner weren't comfortable with the change. We've certainly come a long way from the days of the Comics Code Authority.

Comic Books haven't been relevant since the 60's so I don't care about green lantern. I find it pathetic that the changed a super hero for cash instead of just making a new one. I'm also annoyed about all the focus on gays. At most they're 1% of the population and all the focus being made on them when they are more important things (debt,economy,war, poverty) is frustrating.

Rather than view it as Marvel and DC, it might be more informative to view it as their parent companies finally allowing them to join the modern world. This wouldn't be happening if Disney and Time Warner weren't comfortable with the change.

Right, exactly. There's PR involved here, they want the press (and I'm certainly contributing to that) but I think it's interesting to look beyond that. The Marvel of 20 years ago was still a corporate behemoth, but not in the ways they are today. There's maybe not a gold mine in comic books themselves, but when they're your farm league for billion dollar movies ... well it's saying something when they're comfortable making certain moves with that.

Quote:

We've certainly come a long way from the days of the Comics Code Authority.

No kidding. I deliberately didn't involve the CCA in this, would have had to have written a much longer piece, but I think it's worth noting that there wasn't anything in the CCA that would have forbidden gay characters, it was more the blanket ban on overt sexuality (which become so laughable when you look at any single female super hero's costume, but I digress) that would have been the issue.

Earth 2 is basically a side-Universe where DC keeps Golden Age Of Comics properties around. Apparently they're keeping that mechanic even after the recent reboot. So this Green Lantern is a new version of Alan Scott (the old-timey original GL). In the mainstream DC continuity that is no more, he had a superpowered son called Obsidian who was gay. So for this new Earth 2 universe where they're going to keep Alan Scott as GL, I guess they decided it was appropriate to shift the orientation from father to son for the sake of maintaining a little diversity without having to wait for the character to go through fifty years of publication first.

People who tried to punish homosexuality have always been wrong, because is something human that cannot be avoided. People who is trying to make it a normal thing are also wrong because is never going to be considered normal.

Earth 2 is basically a side-Universe where DC keeps Golden Age Of Comics properties around. Apparently they're keeping that mechanic even after the recent reboot. So this Green Lantern is a new version of Alan Scott (the old-timey original GL). In the mainstream DC continuity that is no more, he had a superpowered son called Obsidian who was gay. So for this new Earth 2 universe where they're going to keep Alan Scott as GL, I guess they decided it was appropriate to shift the orientation from father to son for the sake of maintaining a little diversity without having to wait for the character to go through fifty years of publication first.

Ah, thanks, that's really helpful context. I never followed much in DC outside of the Bat books, was more of an X-Men reader. I love this comment promotion system, makes me want to write for the front page more so I can elevate good stuff more too!

I don't think many people object to a gay character, but I think a LOT of people object to the notion that they're cashing in on a politically correct trend by changing a character. If they'd simply created a new character -- just a normal character who happened to be gay -- I think very few people would have cared. Are they suddenly going to announce that one of the characters is an evangelical Christian? Or a breast cancer survivor? Or whatever? The obviously political pandering is what bothers most of us who aren't crazy about this idea.

They've done this too. Teen Titans has a new, created from scratch gay character named Bunker. He's also Hispanic, so I'm sure you'll just dimiss it as more political correctness. But the only thing that matters is whether or not they can tell good stories with the characters.

Christians in comics aren't anything new. Nightcrawler of the X-Men is just one example, but there are plenty of others, and their religion has figured into many a story over the years.

I'm curious as to why you're bothered by this? I personally like the fact that comics try to approximate the real world when they can.

Seems odd that this article makes no mention of Batwoman, Bunker, Apollo, or Midnighter. If I didn't know better, reading the article, I'd think Earth 2 GL was DC's first gay character of any note, when he's really just the latest in DC's efforts to make a more cosmopolitan DCU.

Now, if only DC's racial minority superhero books would stop dropping to the bottom of the sales charts.

So now Alan Scott is gay. I'm fine with that, but kind of sad about the collateral damage. Farewell Obsidian and Jade. We hardly knew you.

Rather than view it as Marvel and DC, it might be more informative to view it as their parent companies finally allowing them to join the modern world. This wouldn't be happening if Disney and Time Warner weren't comfortable with the change. We've certainly come a long way from the days of the Comics Code Authority.

Are going to see Mickey or Goofy come out of the closet ? I doubt it.

And I agree with some of the others - DC and Marvel shouldn't set a trend for cash (even tho they will) but what's next change Superman and Batman or Wolverine and Spiderman ? Are we gonna see a scene with Superman and Jimmy Olsen caught in the showers by Lois ? Is Alfred gonna find Bruce and Dick having too much fun in the Bat Cave ? WTF !

They need to make a new mainstream character. OR bring one of the supporting characters that is known but does not get much attention from say the Justice League/ Avengers/ X-Men and develop a backstory that includes this as their origin and make it prominent.

As I say this tho - almost every character ever made has had their origin-story altereed or rebooted or changed - little or no consistency.

and i thought: this is the future of comics/graphic novels/etc. use of the web and multimedia. i love how it fades between things as you scroll. i like alan moore and tank girl, but javascript really kicks up the narrative. imagine that.

Seems odd that this article makes no mention of Batwoman, Bunker, Apollo, or Midnighter. If I didn't know better, reading the article, I'd think Earth 2 GL was DC's first gay character of any note, when he's really just the latest in DC's efforts to make a more cosmopolitan DCU.

It wasn't really meant to be an overview of gay characters in DC or Marvel, as I noted in passing there are more and they're just treated as part of the normal fabric of the universe. As they should be. I was really just using DC's press release from yesterday about Green Lantern (as well as the recent Northstar wedding PR which only happened within the last couple of weeks) as an opportunity to examine whether or not these kinds of announcements have the relevance they once did. I hopefully avoided the trap of "this is a story about how the media shouldn't write about this stuff", because I'm not lambasting anyone for covering these events. I'm simply interested in where in the societal curve we are compared to the past. All in the context of comic books of course, this is still geeky Ars after all.

I don't think many people object to a gay character, but I think a LOT of people object to the notion that they're cashing in on a politically correct trend by changing a character. If they'd simply created a new character -- just a normal character who happened to be gay -- I think very few people would have cared. Are they suddenly going to announce that one of the characters is an evangelical Christian? Or a breast cancer survivor? Or whatever? The obviously political pandering is what bothers most of us who aren't crazy about this idea.

They've done this too. Teen Titans has a new, created from scratch gay character named Bunker. He's also Hispanic, so I'm sure you'll just dimiss it as more political correctness. But the only thing that matters is whether or not they can tell good stories with the characters.

Christians in comics aren't anything new. Nightcrawler of the X-Men is just one example, but there are plenty of others, and their religion has figured into many a story over the years.

I'm curious as to why you're bothered by this? I personally like the fact that comics try to approximate the real world when they can.

Maybe you didn't pay attention to what I actually said. I don't object -- and I don't think many people do -- to making a character gay or Hispanic or whatever -- if it's a new character. It's the notion of changing something for what is obviously political pandering that's the objection. You're welcome not to agree with me, but please at least understand my point before replying.

$@#$@#@So tire of all of this P.C. liberal bullThis is NOT progressive, It's Regressive.It's a complete disservice to science, and logicIt's a complete denial of realityand we have all of these people shaking the pom poms for them

and this DOESN'T reflect the real world. It reflects a utopia that gay advocates *wish* were the real world. only 10% of the population are gay, we just have more cameras focused on that 10% than "normal" people.

I realize this poster has a (very infrequent but thorough) history of being reactionary, but I just wanted to respond because it's apparent that a lot of people reading this story aren't massive comicbook geeks and can't really come at this from an informed position.

Whitespiral wrote:

No one, even the company who created the superheroe, should go back and make big changes to the characters' story. It's a betrayal to those who have followed those characters all their lives.

This character was already being re-invented as part of a company-wide continuity reboot. The whole point is to NOT tell the same stories with the same characters anymore. That much should have been obvious to anybody who read the new Justice League. As for not making changes to a character's story, where have you been? Retro-active continuity changes ("retcon") have been around as long as serialized fiction itself. It's just a fact of life for the medium.

Quote:

And about this specific change of events: Disgusting. Only a gay writer changes an already established superheroe and turn him gay. If he wanted a gay character, create a new one!

DC's writer for the new title, James Robinson, isn't gay that I know of. You might have to ask his wife, DC Co-ordinating Editor Jann Jones.

Quote:

Those rumors of conspiracy, so common on the net, of content creators trying to impose their personal liberal beliefs on the population... start to seem so true, after things like these.

Like so many conspiracy theories, this one is born out of paranoia and sentiments that are contradictory to the facts. So I'll thank you to tone it down a bit and look before you leap next time you want to tell someone how something should be done.

Yeah, you will say itś all mute because the gay character is an obscure Green Lantern in an alternate world, and not Hal Jordan or other of the most prominent GLs.

I tell you: What they did, is taint the Green Lantern name with homosexuality and forever associate it with it. From now on, everyone with a Green Lantern T-Shirt, for instance, will be seen as a gay in the closet. The green lantern will be as symbolic as the rainbow for the gay community.

If you don't see it this way, as it's the case with Aurich Lawson, it's just because GL is not your favorite superheroe, in which case, you shouldn't be posting here. Go to the Batman, or X-Men posts, or whatever else you fancy.

Homosexuality is queer because it is unnatural. Like adults being consumed with comics or video games. The rancor toward this comment is evidence. Grow up, men. Love a woman, work hard and give to your family as well as community. Support the right of victims of groupthink to think independently, even though they've tragically consigned it.

I don't think many people object to a gay character, but I think a LOT of people object to the notion that they're cashing in on a politically correct trend by changing a character. If they'd simply created a new character -- just a normal character who happened to be gay -- I think very few people would have cared. Are they suddenly going to announce that one of the characters is an evangelical Christian? Or a breast cancer survivor? Or whatever? The obviously political pandering is what bothers most of us who aren't crazy about this idea.

They've done this too. Teen Titans has a new, created from scratch gay character named Bunker. He's also Hispanic, so I'm sure you'll just dimiss it as more political correctness. But the only thing that matters is whether or not they can tell good stories with the characters.

Christians in comics aren't anything new. Nightcrawler of the X-Men is just one example, but there are plenty of others, and their religion has figured into many a story over the years.

I'm curious as to why you're bothered by this? I personally like the fact that comics try to approximate the real world when they can.

Maybe you didn't pay attention to what I actually said. I don't object -- and I don't think many people do -- to making a character gay or Hispanic or whatever -- if it's a new character. It's the notion of changing something for what is obviously political pandering that's the objection. You're welcome not to agree with me, but please at least understand my point before replying.

No, I paid attention to what you said. You're not "crazy about" it implies that you were bothered, but if not my apologies for misreading you. What you view as "obvious political pandering" I view as a newfound respect for reflecting the world as it is. It's a point that perhaps we should agree to disagree on.

Reinterpreting characters in comics is nothing new. Heck, the fan word "retcon" (for retroactive continuity) exists simply because it happens so often. It's upsetting to some readers whenever it happens, and it doesn't have to involve something "politically correct". In my opinion, the bottom line should always be whether or not the changes they make allow them to tell good stories. 80 years of continuity in the case of some characters is largely irrelevant to a 12 year old who might be reading a comic book today. In fact, it's kind of unfair to expect them to know the entire back story. In this specific case, Alan Scott is no longer fighting Nazis in World War II. I don't think there's any need for the writers to treat him as if he is.

Homosexuality is queer because it is unnatural. Like adults being consumed with comics or video games. The rancor toward this comment is evidence. Grow up, men. Love a woman, work hard and give to your family as well as community. Support the right of victims of groupthink to think independently, even though they've tragically consigned it.

perhaps "unnatural" could be defined as going against our DNA -- a self-propagating molecule programmed to continue its own existence.

so why not go completely "natural" ?

forget clothes, grow some fur. start walking on all fours. urinate on a sensitive political topic and declare it yours -- other monkeys no touch.

I tell you: What they did, is taint the Green Lantern name with homosexuality and forever associate it with it. From now on, everyone with a Green Lantern T-Shirt, for instance, will be seen as a gay in the closet. The green lantern will be as symbolic as the rainbow for the gay community.

If that kind of reaction is restricted to a handful of zany bigots like you, I think the rest of the world can live with it.

Comments like that one are a sad reminder of how it's still necessary for comics to even approach issues like homosexuality (or drug use) this way. The sooner everyone can get over the sensationalized stigma and deal with the issue rationally, the sooner this industry can move away from these obligatory, often ham-fisted PR moves* and get on with writing believable characters for the sake of having believable characters.

*Not saying this is what happens with EVERY attempt from mainstream comics to deal with stuff like homosexuality, but it sure seems to turn out that way more often than not. Publishers had a similar problem portraying realistic drug use and even rock music in days gone by. It's partly the result of having to speak to a broad audience on controversy. We'll see how it plays out for Alan Scott.

Yeah, you will say itś all mute because the gay character is an obscure Green Lantern in an alternate world, and not Hal Jordan or other of the most prominent GLs.

I tell you: What they did, is taint the Green Lantern name with homosexuality and forever associate it with it. From now on, everyone with a Green Lantern T-Shirt, for instance, will be seen as a gay in the closet. The green lantern will be as symbolic as the rainbow for the gay community.

If you don't see it this way, as it's the case with Aurich Lawson, it's just because GL is not your favorite superheroe, in which case, you shouldn't be posting here. Go to the Batman, or X-Men posts, or whatever else you fancy.

Heh. It's probably going to blow your mind, then, to learn that there's a gay bar in Washington, DC called "The Green Lantern". Is art imitating life, or is it the other way around? :-)

Moderation: I realize people have strong feelings on these things. I have no desire to censor opinions on this topic. But we won't tolerate homophopia here, so dial it back or I'm going to start moderating people.

This is a safe place, be it discussing gay rights or grown men (and women!) enjoying comic books and video games. If you can't deal, feel free to take your comments elsewhere.

Homosexuality is queer because it is unnatural. Like adults being consumed with comics or video games. The rancor toward this comment is evidence. Grow up, men. Love a woman, work hard and give to your family as well as community. Support the right of victims of groupthink to think independently, even though they've tragically consigned it.

So, uh, whats a guy to do if he flat out finds he has no sexual attraction to the ladies, but finds other guys quite dashing? Also, what makes it 'unnatural' given that there are rampant examples of homosexuality in nature?

I've posted this comic panel before, so sorry if you've seen me do it, but it's such a great commentary on how mutants are distrusted over other heroes in the Marvel universe, it seems relevant to this topic:

I've posted this comic panel before, so sorry if you've seen me do it, but it's such a great commentary on how mutants are distrusted over other heroes in the Marvel universe, it seems relevant to this topic:

Mutants were a great allegory for just about any kind of minority. I think that was part of the appeal for titles like X-Men; if you were gay, or Hispanic in a white neighborhood, or a hopeless nerd, or had any other "difference" that caused you be singled out for harassment of some kind, you could identify with them and see a lot of your troubles in how they were treated through those stories. It really seems like a brilliantly effective, stealthy way to speak out on the root cause for lots of problems.

Aurich Lawson / Aurich is the creative director at Ars Technica, where he oversees the look and feel of the site as well as the day-to-day story graphic needs. He has over 17 years of experience in interactive design.